On A Side Note

[lady-isobel-barnett]

Such a small stand would look a bit silly. Don't know the practicalities but corporate boxes imo wouldn't look out of place. Or a covered disabled area?

[yoda-jag]

in terms of construction as a result of any propco activities, propco offers ptfc nothing but an eyesore, abombination and embarrassment of a grossly lopsided football stadium

[joekea]

I for one would support the idea that the fans buy it back and build our own stand (similar to the North Stand) either seated or safe standing.

Support also means cash contribution....but if we were able to raise funds the club would need to contribute to the building costs also.

My worry is that they feel the will get a better ROI when a developer buys the land.

[Dr.D]

Yoda, I think you will also add that our debt was reduced considerably as a rewsult of Propco.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Dr.D

[jlsarmy]

Yoda, I think you will also add that our debt was reduced considerably as a rewsult of Propco.

And so was the asset that was our football ground

[stolenscone]

There are a lot of extremist views on this topic.

 

1) Myth 1 -- The propco investors are all just in it to feather their own nests. They couldn't wait to get their hands on the land cheap so they can develop it and make a tonne of cash.

 

Wrong. The investment was not an attractive one and if anyone is smart enough to raise £800k, but dumb enough to use it to buy a development site at that time at Firhill, then they should be shot to preserve the gene pool.

 

2) Myth 2 -- It's a completely rubbish "investment" and they'll never make any money. It was an act of total altruism to put money into the company and the people who did so only wanted what's best for the club.

 

Rubbish. If that was the sole driving factor, then they would have simply donated their money to bail out the club and taken nothing in return.

 

The truth is much less sensational -- these people were almost certainly reluctant investors who were only persuaded to part with their cash because they had a soft spot for the football club, or because they were persuaded by someone else who did. But they were also people who didn't simply want to pee their money away by donating it to the club. It's their money, so why should they just give it away. Instead the proposal is such that if they are willing to stick with it for the long haul, they they probably will see their money back with a reasonable profit. The timing and size of any profit will largely depend on a fully recovery in the property market and an wise head running the development.

 

The former will happen sooner or later; I, personally have my doubts about the latter. Despite the property downturn, there has been a real tide of student accomodation development over the last 3 or 4 years, and yet the best they can come up with is a resi consent for flats. Having watched the student development boat sail past, they will no doubt decide to change tack and abandon their current plans just as the resi development market starts to pick up. But then, I'm a bit of a cynic.

 

Personally, I would not have objected to a development in princple, but for me, it should have been all or nothing. Developing round the edges is clunky and only serves to limit the development value of the whole site. At a time when the Council were looking for development partners on the other side of the canal (if I recall correctly, the bulk of the expensive infrastructrue work was being / had already been done by the local authority), we / the property company were nickel and dimeing by looking at residential schemes shoe horned into narrow strips of land which knackered the remaining development value of the site, all at a point in time where these schemes were incapable of being realised in any case. A structure could have been put in place which gave control of the whole site to the property company, allowing them time to work up and sell a viable scheme; which gave complete security to the football club; and which would have tied development of the current ground to the creation of a new, more suitably sized ground in the vicinity.

 

Anyway, the ship has sailed long ago on all that, and this is really rather irrelevant to us as supporters. What is more interesting for me is whether the situation could be safely unwound for the football club. I believe it could be, provided the property company shareholders wish to co-operate and provided the supporters can be engaged and be persuaded to stick their shoulders to the wheel. Two very big provisos, however, and I have no idea whether they can be met.

 

One thing I would say though, and it will be my last comment on the subject:- if people were willing to look at a campaign to buy the land back, then the first thing to do is not to start raising the money. The first thing to do is to speak to the property company people and agree the basis of a deal -- in effect, to agree the amount required and a timescale within which to raise the money. Then, put a binding legal contract in place to ensure that the agreement is locked down and everyone knows where they stand. Only then do you that should we stick our shoulders to the wheel and push hard to raise the money. If you don't take these steps before you begin to fundraise, then you are starting to collect money with no idea of how much you need to raise, whether there is even a deal to be done, or even if the propco people will still own the property by the time you have finished gathering the money. Folk would look pretty silly if they raised a load of cash only to look up and find that there's already a block of flats where the (formerly) excellent main stand used to be...

[jlsarmy]

There are a lot of extremist views on this topic.

 

1) Myth 1 -- The propco investors are all just in it to feather their own nests. They couldn't wait to get their hands on the land cheap so they can develop it and make a tonne of cash.

 

Wrong. The investment was not an attractive one and if anyone is smart enough to raise £800k, but dumb enough to use it to buy a development site at that time at Firhill, then they should be shot to preserve the gene pool.

 

2) Myth 2 -- It's a completely rubbish "investment" and they'll never make any money. It was an act of total altruism to put money into the company and the people who did so only wanted what's best for the club.

 

Rubbish. If that was the sole driving factor, then they would have simply donated their money to bail out the club and taken nothing in return.

 

The truth is much less sensational -- these people were almost certainly reluctant investors who were only persuaded to part with their cash because they had a soft spot for the football club, or because they were persuaded by someone else who did. But they were also people who didn't simply want to pee their money away by donating it to the club. It's their money, so why should they just give it away. Instead the proposal is such that if they are willing to stick with it for the long haul, they they probably will see their money back with a reasonable profit. The timing and size of any profit will largely depend on a fully recovery in the property market and an wise head running the development.

 

The former will happen sooner or later; I, personally have my doubts about the latter. Despite the property downturn, there has been a real tide of student accomodation development over the last 3 or 4 years, and yet the best they can come up with is a resi consent for flats. Having watched the student development boat sail past, they will no doubt decide to change tack and abandon their current plans just as the resi development market starts to pick up. But then, I'm a bit of a cynic.

 

Personally, I would not have objected to a development in princple, but for me, it should have been all or nothing. Developing round the edges is clunky and only serves to limit the development value of the whole site. At a time when the Council were looking for development partners on the other side of the canal (if I recall correctly, the bulk of the expensive infrastructrue work was being / had already been done by the local authority), we / the property company were nickel and dimeing by looking at residential schemes shoe horned into narrow strips of land which knackered the remaining development value of the site, all at a point in time where these schemes were incapable of being realised in any case. A structure could have been put in place which gave control of the whole site to the property company, allowing them time to work up and sell a viable scheme; which gave complete security to the football club; and which would have tied development of the current ground to the creation of a new, more suitably sized ground in the vicinity.

 

Anyway, the ship has sailed long ago on all that, and this is really rather irrelevant to us as supporters. What is more interesting for me is whether the situation could be safely unwound for the football club. I believe it could be, provided the property company shareholders wish to co-operate and provided the supporters can be engaged and be persuaded to stick their shoulders to the wheel. Two very big provisos, however, and I have no idea whether they can be met.

 

One thing I would say though, and it will be my last comment on the subject:- if people were willing to look at a campaign to buy the land back, then the first thing to do is not to start raising the money. The first thing to do is to speak to the property company people and agree the basis of a deal -- in effect, to agree the amount required and a tiImescale within which to raise the money. Then, put a binding legal contract in place to ensure that the agreement is locked down and everyone knows where they stand. Only then do you that should we stick our shoulders to the wheel and push hard to raise the money. If you don't take these steps before you begin to fundraise, then you are starting to collect money with no idea of how much you need to raise, whether there is even a deal to be done, or even if the propco people will still own the property by the time you have finished gathering the money. Folk would look pretty silly if they raised a load of cash only to look up and find that there's already a block of flats where the (formerly) excellent main stand used to be...

Absolutely don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying, rather than deal with myths let's deal with the facts , we've now got 2 directors namely David Beattie and Billy Allan who are directors of PTFC and Propco surely a conflict of interests , and these key figures are going to be hugely significant in the future of our club. The other facts are there has been no redevelopment either of the Main Stand or the City end of the ground as a football stadium because basically there was nothing in it for the shareholders of Propco . We as supporters should have a say whether we want a hybrid of a football stadium/offices/students flats. My own personal opinion having been to Tynecastle and Easter Rd , I would rather have a football stadium . Think that if the supporters want to be involved , I don't see that as a problem but we should work alongside PTFC to make that happen with part of the business negotiations being having more say in what's happening at our club, place on the board perhaps . I agree that there should be consultation between the propco directors to see what their plans and expectations are for the future of the club surely they must have contingency plans. David Beattie, Billy Allan etc are business men and I'm pretty sure they'll still want some sort of return from their investment or the deal that they did back in 2009 would have been primarily a business loan. Still think it's an option worth pursuing

[ian_mac]

Some excellent posts here, especially the last 2.

 

In this seemingly new culture of board and fan engagement, I don't think that it's out with the realms of possibility to arrange a meeting to see where we are with propco, and for the directors to update us on what the plans are for this.

 

The circumstances at the club have changed a lot since the original deal was done.

[Jaggernaut]

Some excellent posts here, especially the last 2.

 

In this seemingly new culture of board and fan engagement, I don't think that it's out with the realms of possibility to arrange a meeting to see where we are with propco, and for the directors to update us on what the plans are for this.

 

The circumstances at the club have changed a lot since the original deal was done.

 

It would definitely be interesting to know about propco's plans. Is it still wait and see if they can sell the bing to a builder? Or might they now realise that returning the bing to be part of the stadium would make life easier when it comes to dealing with away supports and in view of the main stand's shortcomings? Now that we're an established Premiership team and all that!

[ScottyDFA]

I agree with stolenscone - I think we should aim to fundraise / collect donations with the purpose of buying the land back. Once this was agreed / started we could discuss with the people behind FDL what amount would be required to purchase their 50% stake. That becomes the first target.

 

 

 

FDL does not have a 50% stake in the Main Stand and city end. FDL owns the property outright. It was bought from the Club for "£1.8M" - in the form of £900K cash plus an allocation of ordinary 'A' and 'B' shares, which are of nominal value, in FDL. These shares only become valuable if FDL distributes (at its own discretion) any of the proceeds of a sale to PTFC after holders of the redeemable preference shares have been paid. PTFC owns none of these preference shares.

 

 

This is my understanding of the documents I've seen.

Edited May 18, 2014 by ScottyDFA

[ScottyDFA]

Allan, can you please clarify how the share structure at FDL prevents development which does not have the backing of the shareholders of Partick Thistle?

 

Sorry for bumping this folks, but I'm keen to hear Allan Cowan's take on this.

[jagsfan81]

I left the Board nearly 4 years ago and have no knowledge of the current position.I have not seen the Annual Return you mention.Agreements were made and assurances given regarding future development and all of this is recorded in Board Minutes at the time.Allan Cowan.

[ScottyDFA]

Hello Allan. Thanks for getting back to us on this. For those of us who don't have access to the Minutes of PTFC Board meetings, can you expand somewhat on what agreements were made and assurances given; and do you have any knowledge of the extent to which agreements/assurances given in the manner you describe are legally binding?

[ScottyDFA]

Bump.

[potty trained]

Absolutely don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying, rather than deal with myths let's deal with the facts , we've now got 2 directors namely David Beattie and Billy Allan who are directors of PTFC and Propco surely a conflict of interests , and these key figures are going to be hugely significant in the future of our club. The other facts are there has been no redevelopment either of the Main Stand or the City end of the ground as a football stadium because basically there was nothing in it for the shareholders of Propco . We as supporters should have a say whether we want a hybrid of a football stadium/offices/students flats. My own personal opinion having been to Tynecastle and Easter Rd , I would rather have a football stadium . Think that if the supporters want to be involved , I don't see that as a problem but we should work alongside PTFC to make that happen with part of the business negotiations being having more say in what's happening at our club, place on the board perhaps . I agree that there should be consultation between the propco directors to see what their plans and expectations are for the future of the club surely they must have contingency plans. David Beattie, Billy Allan etc are business men and I'm pretty sure they'll still want some sort of return from their investment or the deal that they did back in 2009 would have been primarily a business loan. Still think it's an option worth pursuing

 

David Beattie, Billy Allan & Ian Dodd.

[ScottyDFA]

... It was a long-term investment made in the knowledge that property prices would inevitably rise well above post-credit crunch levels, when the value of property and land was decimated. This is now what is happening. They bought low and will sell high. It was a no-brainer. Watch how things develop over the next year or so. Development will commence to coincide with the next peak in the housing market.

Edited September 5, 2014 by ScottyDFA